Need camera that takes super close shots.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Rangerscott

Youll see next week. I'm sure its a piece of shit by TWF standards.

Aw don't feel bad, I'm guessing that my gf got me a p&s for Christmas to replace the one she lost at the Gap. Most likely a Samsung dual screen job... I'll never use it, just like the Sony that was lost.

[Mudpuppy]

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

Negative Ghostrider... my A230 was less than $390.

That is suggested retail my friend.. I never pay suggested retail, ever..

But I would like to see the A230 or any p&s, as is no external flash or additional lighting with the flash that comes with it take a picture like this in night time indoor conditions under a triple 13watt CFL light:

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Mudpuppy

That is suggested retail my friend.. I never pay suggested retail, ever..

But I would like to see the A230 or any p&s, as is no external flash or additional lighting with the flash that comes with it take a picture like this in night time indoor conditions under a triple 13watt CFL light:

Yep too bad my camera could never take a picture as good as that... BTW here's a picture of the Sony A-230... I also have the 75-300mm lens and a few other bits. I'm no Ebbs but I'm working on it...

[Mudpuppy]

very nice rig... that 75-300mm is a big plus especially like say at the track when you want to get some close up shots but you can't get close up.. i get decent shots with the 55-200mm but i would definitely like to extend it to 300mm.. and I apologize I was confused - I posted the world's best P&S and you were saying a230 which I assumed was the same thing as I didn't memorize the p&s model.. two totally different things..

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Mudpuppy

very nice rig... that 75-300mm is a big plus especially like say at the track when you want to get some close up shots but you can't get close up.. i get decent shots with the 55-200mm but i would definitely like to extend it to 300mm.. and I apologize I was confused - I posted the world's best P&S and you were saying a230 which I assumed was the same thing as I didn't memorize the p&s model.. two totally different things..

No problem Bro! Yea I like the 75-300mm but I want a 55-200mm! I think the versatility would come in handy... I screwed up and bought this bag...
http://www.caselogic.com/slr_camera_...modelid=136691
So now I feel like I need to fill it with STUFF!!!

[Mudpuppy]

Yeah I was totally confused.. That is awesome that you picked that Sony A230 up for less than $390.. great deal.. Post up some pictures from it.. I really don't know Sony or Canon too much.. I am heavy into Nikon and really my knowledge is very limited at that.. That backpack is sweet..

Now you say you want 55-200mm instead of 75-300? I have to ask why? If you have a kit lens like 18-55mm (which is pretty standard) you can cover the low range. If you want macro you can get a 10-24mm. In terms of the difference between 55-200 and 75-300 I would say stick with the 75-300. If you have 18-55 you aren't missing that much of a range - 60-70 is not worth losing 100mm of zoom. But now if you say you want 55-200mm f/2.8 then I understand wanting to change from 70-300mm f/4-5.6 to get better low light action shots like sports and the 55-200mm f/2.8 is probably the most common zoom lens.. But if you just switch to 55-200mm f/4-5.6 like I have then you are wasting your time and money as well as losing out on 100mm of zoom that is way better than getting an extra 20mm on the low end.. just my opinion..

check out this new shot i got with my 35mm prime lens - that is what you need to invest in - a 35mm or 50mm prime lens f/1.8 - inexpensive and super sharp and deadly in terms of pictures in any light.. only downfall is you have to manually frame the picture (meaning move your feet):



That and invest in a good shoe flash - which is what I used for that picture - I bounced it off the ceiling.. way more effective than any built in or pop up flash..

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Mudpuppy

Yeah I was totally confused.. That is awesome that you picked that Sony A230 up for less than $390.. great deal.. Post up some pictures from it.. I really don't know Sony or Canon too much.. I am heavy into Nikon and really my knowledge is very limited at that.. That backpack is sweet..

Now you say you want 55-200mm instead of 75-300? I have to ask why? If you have a kit lens like 18-55mm (which is pretty standard) you can cover the low range. If you want macro you can get a 10-24mm. In terms of the difference between 55-200 and 75-300 I would say stick with the 75-300. If you have 18-55 you aren't missing that much of a range - 60-70 is not worth losing 100mm of zoom. But now if you say you want 55-200mm f/2.8 then I understand wanting to change from 70-300mm f/4-5.6 to get better low light action shots like sports and the 55-200mm f/2.8 is probably the most common zoom lens.. But if you just switch to 55-200mm f/4-5.6 like I have then you are wasting your time and money as well as losing out on 100mm of zoom that is way better than getting an extra 20mm on the low end.. just my opinion..

check out this new shot i got with my 35mm prime lens - that is what you need to invest in - a 35mm or 50mm prime lens f/1.8 - inexpensive and super sharp and deadly in terms of pictures in any light.. only downfall is you have to manually frame the picture (meaning move your feet):



That and invest in a good shoe flash - which is what I used for that picture - I bounced it off the ceiling.. way more effective than any built in or pop up flash..

I had a flash in my hand a few days ago...next on the list for sure. You may be right about the lens, my thinking revolves around not having to change lens. I'll get some pics soon...

[Rangerscott]

Camera should be here thursday.

[Mudpuppy]

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

I had a flash in my hand a few days ago...next on the list for sure. You may be right about the lens, my thinking revolves around not having to change lens. I'll get some pics soon...

flash is definitely high on my list.. it is amazing what you can do with a good flash and using it indirect (fill flash).. If your thinking revolves around not having to change lenses then scrap the idea it won't help and you will lose a lot more than you gain. Most people sell the 55-200mm to buy the 70-300mm lens to get the extra length. I was going to do this as well until I started playing around with the 55-200mm at sporting events and talking to the pros - then i decided I am going to scrap the 70-300mm idea (f/4.5-5.6) and go with a 70-200mm f/2.8 - but problem is I go from a $500 lens to a $2,100 lens. But it is well worth the extra cash. You can up the shutter speeds in zoomed shots at sporting events even in lower light conditions to freeze the action. And you can get good indoor sports / action pictures as well. Either the 55-200mm or 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 are good in good lighting and/or on a tripod but if you get in lower light or changing light conditions you will struggle with blur and lower shutter speeds.

[Rangerscott]